I will be recognizing Torture Awareness Month by continuing to work to force transparency and accountability with respect to the thousands of detainees who have been left in prisons throughout Afghanistan as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation.

PRESS CONFERENCE: Restore Torture Commission Funding! - Join us as we (a) call for the restoration of funding for the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission, to assure that its important work can continue; and (b) applaud plans by Governor Quinn to close the Tamms Supermax facility.
Where: State of Illinois Bldg - James R. Thompson Center (Randolph & Clark)
When: 12:00 noon - 1:00 pmJOIN the Facebook event page and invite friends!

GATHERING in Support of Survivors of Torture - organized by representatives of a wide range of local and national organizations
Where: (note revised location) State of Illinois Bldg - James R. Thompson Center (Randolph & Clark)
When: (note revised time) 12:30pm - 1:30pm (immediately following press conference)JOIN the Facebook event page and invite friends!

It's not enough to just pull U.S. combat troops out of Afghanistan - we
need to ground the drones, clear the prisons we've filled with
detainees, remove the bases, get rid of the contractors, stop the
training activities -- DEMILITARIZE Afghanistan!

My most prominent memory of my first viewing of the Guantanamo film, The Response, is of one of the stars of the film -- Kate
Mulgrew of Star Trek fame -- participating in a panel after the
screening. I was blown away when she said, "I did this because our
civil liberties in our country have been gravely damaged and we all need
to contribute to repairing them."

There was a lot of noise in Chicago during the NATO Summit. But one message we
managed to get through -- at least to some people -- was that people in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and many other places are being injured and
killed in their names ... and that if that bothers their consciences
they can get active and do something about it.

By now, everyone knows about the New York Times article
describing Barack Obama's personal administration of drone killing
around the world. What few people are willing to face up to is that
Obama 2012 partisans actually see this as a way to get a lot of
Americans to like Obama: "This is the candidate; you MUST support him!"

A major focus of the demonstration was an undeclared U.S. war:
the killing of hundreds of Pakistanis in secret attacks, principally
using drones. Yesterday, people from throughout Chicago -- and
especially from the Pakistani-American community -- stood up to say the
drone attacks must end, and we must hold those who are responsible
accountable.

What people need to understand is that the average reader skips right through the fog of legal and moral concepts and sees only the parts that reassure his/her reptilian brain.

The article is laced with sentences such as . . .

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go."

"He's a president who is quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States."

[T]he control he exercises also appears to reflect Mr. Obama's striking self-confidence: he believes, according to several people who have worked closely with him, that his own judgment should be brought to bear on strikes.

"After that, as president, it seemed like he felt in his gut the threat to the United States."

People read these sentences and they say, "Gee, I guess this guy Obama will protect me from harm. We sure are lucky to have such a strong man at the helm of our ship of state."

As such, the article accomplished precisely what it set out to do: put a stake in the ground for Obama 2012 partisans: "This is the candidate; you MUST support him!" For those who doubt this interpretation, this statement from the article about the involvement of Obama's chief re-election strategist should suffice: "David Axelrod, the president’s closest political adviser, began showing up at the 'Terror Tuesday' meetings, his unspeaking presence a visible reminder of what everyone understood: a successful attack [against the United States] would overwhelm the president’s other aspirations and achievements."

It's hard to fault people for absorbing these rapid-fire suggestions and internalizing them. I just have one request: every time people think of "Mr. Forceful," they imagine his image side-by-side with that of one of his victims.

Who are we? The United States, personified by its "great man" President
Obama, is a kind nation that is riven by a belief that it should have
the ultimate power over life and death, that every being on earth is
somehow of lesser importance.

Image source: Protest against war funding at the office of Representative McCollum, St. Paul, Minnesota, May 18, 2010. "Multiple peace organizations held an anti-war protest at Representative McCollum’s office in St. Paul, MN to protest spending and escalation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. United States Representative Betty McCollum is planning on voting for the $33 billion supplemental funding bill for the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Participants included: Anti-War Committee, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace, Twin Cities Peace Campaign, Women Against Military Madness."

The drone industry in the U.S. is currently centered in the San Diego area, home of General Atomics. But the area just north of Los Angeles is an equally important source of "good" military aerospace jobs.

I was particularly struck by the statement in the video that military aerospace jobs offer a "nice American win/win type of situation." I wonder if the person speaking considered -- for even a moment! -- the victims of U.S. military action.

I suspect he didn't, so I offer here some images and text about civilian victims of a recent U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan:

Both President Hamid Karzai and NATO commanders ordered an investigation on Sunday into reports that a family of eight had been killed in a coalition airstrike in eastern Afghanistan. NATO and Afghan provincial government officials gave somewhat divergent accounts of the episodes. The casualties took place in eastern Paktia Province on Saturday night when the family’s home was hit by a bomb, said Rohullah Samoon, a spokesman for the governor of Paktia. Six children were killed, four boys and two girls, as well as their mother and father, whose name was Safiullah.

My prediction? When we ultimately stop thinking like "Americans" and instead recognize that we must think as fellow human beings, the "win" and "good" in those military aerospace jobs is going evaporate before our eyes.

It is time now to turn to the dirty secret of American life and the
primary dilemma of the antiwar movement: the military money that flows
to EVERY Congressional district, and in particular the "good jobs" that
members of Congress think they are protecting when they vote for
ever-higher levels of military spending.

In my opinion, the reason to focus on drones is this: when we focus on
drones, the general
public is able to "get," to an unusual extent, the degree to which
popular consent has been banished from the process of carrying out state
violence. (Sure, it was banished long ago, but the absence of a human
in the
cockpit of a drone suddenly makes a light bulb go off in people's
heads.) It takes some prodding, but people can sense that drone use
somehow crosses a line. And that opens up the discussion about how our consent has been eliminated from the vast range of US militarism.

Isn't the real problem that fully half
of Boeing's business consists of making and selling war materiel? Is it
really necessary to identify the one, or two, or three most egregious
weapons that Boeing makes? Do we need to pick and choose? Isn't the
real issue that nice, all-American, fly-the-friendly-skies Boeing is one
of the core purveyors of war and misery in the world today, by virtue
of its Military Aircraft division?
I mean, look at their own sanitized version of what they do -- "Strike,
Mobility, Surveillance & Engagement, Unmanned and Missile
Systems, Global Support" -- even in their own words its readily apparent
that they're peddling poison.

Just 5 days ago, we saw the passing of Paul Fussell, a scholar who gave voice to the disgust with war felt by generations of veterans. Fussell built on his first-hand experience of war in Europe in 1943: "During his tour of duty he won the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts — he was wounded in the back and legs — and he emerged with a disdain for those who would justify wars, especially those who never fought. He hammered the point in The Great War and Modern Memory and other books, including Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War (1989), a relentless chronicle of everything that was dreadful or repugnant about the soldiering experience in World War II, and a memoir, Doing Battle: The Making of a Skeptic (1996)."

The bad news is drones have made all of us more implicated and culpable than ever. But the good news is that the drones also offer up clear pathway to putting a stop to the immoral, dishonorable, unlawful killing.

This Memorial Day, commit yourself to something that America's fallen servicemen and women -- and Iraq Veterans Against the War ... and veterans of all conflicts -- would want: an end to killing with drones.

* * * * *

Painting: We Honor the Fallen by Ret. Sgt. Peter Damon from the Wounded in Action art exhibition.

In my opinion, the reason to focus on drones is this: when we focus on
drones, the general
public is able to "get," to an unusual extent, the degree to which
popular consent has been banished from the process of carrying out state
violence. (Sure, it was banished long ago, but the absence of a human
in the
cockpit of a drone suddenly makes a light bulb go off in people's
heads.) It takes some prodding, but people can sense that drone use
somehow crosses a line. And that opens up the discussion about how our consent has been eliminated from the vast range of US militarism.

Consider the moment in the film All Quiet On the Western Front
when the young soldier returns to visit his old high school. The soldier
visits the class of the teacher who had goaded him and many of his
classmates to enlist in the first place. Encouraged by his teacher to
tell about the "glories" of being a soldier, he delivers a damning
verdict . . . .

It's time for us to get honest about the true costs of war, including the long term health
consequences for people who serve in the military, and the corresponding
long-term costs that our society must commit to bear.

But it is time now to turn to the dirty secret of American life and the primary dilemma of the antiwar movement: the military money that flows to EVERY Congressional district, and in particular the "good jobs" that members of Congress think they are protecting when they vote for ever-higher levels of military spending.

A case in point is the drone (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) industry. A high-tech company in the San Diego area called General Atomics is having a field day with these new darlings of the military-industrial complex.

Drones are a rapidly expanding part of the way America wages war everywhere -- a "breakthrough" in warfare that poses enormous moral hazard, and one that needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.
Yet with General Atomics creating thousands of jobs -- including many, many very good jobs in engineering -- in Southern California and elsewhere ... what are the chances of getting members of the California congressional delegation to reduce military spending in general and drone appropriations in particular?
I was recently involved in some Twitter exchanges with Dana Rohrabacher, the congressman whose district abuts General Atomics' area, and who is one of the 50+ members of the Unmanned Systems Caucus in Congress.

Rohrabacher is a big fan of drones.

It should be noted that a lot of people thing that drones are just wonderful: they are high-tech and they keep our military personnel out of harm's way.

And many people also have a very cloudy notion of the rights and wrongs of "going after" individuals (and their associated communities) when they are perceived to "threaten" the United States.

Rohrabacher is particularly cavalier, if not obtuse. But it is very difficult to imagine any congressman from California having a terribly insightful relationship to the truth about drones and drone killing, when the "well-being" of so much of his/her district is tied to the drone industry.

My initial impulse was to try to focus entirely on Congressman Rohrabacher and his lack of empathy for the victims of drone killing. Certainly "Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun" would take on a new meaning if Dana Rohrabacher's photograph was paired everywhere it appeared with images of drone victims.

But perhaps it is going to require a much more broad-based discussion -- including a more carefully considered definition of "well-being" (one that embraces moral well-being), and the involvement of the entire community in every congressional district.

"Because of the intensified division of labor," the narrator explains,
"many technicians and scientists can no longer recognize the
contribution the have made to weapons of destruction." "Our department extracts lareic, oleic, and naptha acids . . . . " "I'm a chemist. What should I do? If I develop a substance, it can be good for humanity . . . ." "Besides napalm, Dow Chemical produces 800 other products . . . ." Does this familiar to you?

I was particularly struck by the statement in the video that military
aerospace jobs offer a "nice American win/win type of situation." I
wonder if the person speaking considered -- for even a moment! -- the
victims of U.S. military action.

In my opinion, the reason to focus on drones is this: when we focus on
drones, the general
public is able to "get," to an unusual extent, the degree to which
popular consent has been banished from the process of carrying out state
violence. (Sure, it was banished long ago, but the absence of a human
in the
cockpit of a drone suddenly makes a light bulb go off in people's
heads.) It takes some prodding, but people can sense that drone use
somehow crosses a line. And that opens up the discussion about how our consent has been eliminated from the vast range of US militarism.

Isn't the real problem that fully half
of Boeing's business consists of making and selling war materiel? Is it
really necessary to identify the one, or two, or three most egregious
weapons that Boeing makes? Do we need to pick and choose? Isn't the
real issue that nice, all-American, fly-the-friendly-skies Boeing is one
of the core purveyors of war and misery in the world today, by virtue
of its Military Aircraft division?
I mean, look at their own sanitized version of what they do -- "Strike,
Mobility, Surveillance & Engagement, Unmanned and Missile
Systems, Global Support" -- even in their own words its readily apparent
that they're peddling poison.

There was a lot of noise in Chicago last week. But one message we managed to get through -- at least to some people -- was that people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and many other places are being injured and killed in their names ... and that if that bothers their consciences they can get active and do something about it.

Some in the lunchtime crowd were listening. “Let’s just say, this morning I wasn’t thinking about drones, and children dying. So it definitely opened my eyes,” one young woman said as she sat in a plaza along Michigan Avenue.

"STOP THE WARS"(Photo courtesy FJJ)

I'm grateful to Kevin Gosztola for these videos of the reading of drone victims names and display of victim images at the protest:

At the end of the first day of the 2012 CODEPINK drone conference, I
came to a realization: the fundamental problem that we had all gathered
to address is that drones render killing 100% invisible.
And as long as the killing is invisible, we lose the most powerful tool
we have for fighting the killing: the disgust and outrage of the
general public.

July 2014 - Many organizations from across the city joined the call by Anti-War Committee
– Chicago, Jews for Justice in Palestine, U.S. Palestinian Community
Network and 8th Day Center for Justice: Protest Boeing Death Machines in
Gaza: Demand Chicago Drop Boeing from Air and Water Show!

Year after year, hundreds of thousands of people from Chicago and the
surrounding area gather on the lakeshore to watch aerial displays by an
array of planes. Most don't suspect that they are being subjected to an
intense propaganda effort by multiple branches of the U.S. military.
The Chicago Coalition to Shut Down Guantanamo views this as a perfect
opportunity to engage with the
public and enlist them in the growing movement against U.S. war,
torture, surveillance, and other crimes. We will join activists from
many other peace and justice groups who have had a growing presence at
this event in recent years.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

The juxtaposition of the vainglorious NATO Summit in Chicago and today's latest set of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan is just too much to take.

Much of the world press regurgitates the standard United States government narrative of these drone strikes -- see for instance the New York Times account: Pakistan Says U.S. Drone Strike Kills Suspected Militants. In contrast, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) compiles as many accounts as possible, which gives a far more truthful account of the facts -- especially those related to injury and death inflicted on innocent people. According to BIJ, in the latest attack:

The CIA’s drones returned to the attack for the second time in 24 hours, killing ‘suspected militants’ in an attack on a house. But a nearby mosque was also hit as villagers attended morning prayers. At least three civilians died. ‘The drone fired two missiles at the compound. We believe it was being used by militants,’ one official told Reuters. Associated Press’s sources said that ‘most of those killed were Uzbek insurgents,’ although KUNA reported tribal elders as saying that all of those killed were ‘innocent local tribesmen.’ At least three civilians were reportedly killed when a nearby mosque was also struck during the attack, according to AFP. A security official told the news agency that the three worshippers, believed to be Central Asians, ‘were seriously wounded and died later in the hospital.’ Channel 4 News said that most of the dead were local villagers, with four being ‘foreign fighters, believed to be Turkmen.’

Would someone please look at the list of drone strikes in Pakistan -- week after week after week -- compiled by BIJ and figure out a way to convey to Americans what this would feel like if it the UNITED STATES were on the receiving end of this terror?
There can be no question but that Americans and the rest of the world will eventually wake up to the terror being inflicted in their name on Pakistanis and others. The only question that will then remain will be whether Obama, Panetta, and the whole drone "kill chain" will be prosecuted as war criminals or as ordinary criminals. (And God help them if they are condemned to the limbo of "unlawful enemy combatant" - entitled to neither civil nor military justice.)

Hamid Karzai and Barack Obama meet at the NATO Summit, Chicago"After a hundred visions and revisions, have there finally been decisionson Afghanistan? And is there time for more before the Presidential electionin November? And, depending on whether Obama wins
or loses, howreversible might those be?" (from The New Yorker,
"Is Obama Really Done with Afghanistan?" by Amy Davidson)

The whole "Afghan good enough" concept was discussed in the New York Times on Friday, May 18: U.S. Redefines Afghan Success Before Conference. The basic idea seems to be, "We've failed miserably at forcing Afghanistan do what we want it to do. It can't possibly be that we and our methods are flawed. It must be because Afghanistan is a fundamentally f*cked up place, and so let's not get down on ourselves as we walk out on the mess we've made."

The CSIS paper is carefully couched in technocrat-speak, in order, I suppose, to cushion the blow that it delivers at the end: "Pursuing today’s 'strategy' and illusions offers almost no hope at all." Admonitions such as "Local Forces and 'Warlords' Are Better Than Nothing" and "Rely on Direct Support of the Competent and Effective Elements of Afghan Governance in the Field" are just another way of saying the U.S./NATO had no business expecting that it could make things run in a particular way in Afghanistan through use of force.

The problem with "Afghan good enough" is that it doesn't recognize that "a militarized Afghanistan is NOT good enough." The gaping hole in the CSIS paper is that it doesn't address the legacy of militarization that the U.S./NATO have put in place in Afghanistan, and that must be reversed. When it says,

Creating an Affordable Afghan Army Beginning Now: One key will be to give real meaning to the effort to reshape Afghan forces as a much smaller and more affordable force, and to do so as soon as possible, rather than building up to a 352,000-man hollow force and rushing down to 230,000. This means a force that can credibly be funded with the money that could actually come rather than relying on promises. It means focusing on the army, knowing that much of the police will remain ineffective or corrupt. It means securing the Afghan government where it is now effective, rather than trying to expand it into vulnerable ink spots than can easily be overrun once U.S. and ISAF forces leave. It also means creating plans for the size of Afghan forces that trainers and partners can credibly sustain, providing more than mere pledges and hopes.

... it leaves the way wide open for the usual set of solutions that have been set in train in Afghanistan: drones killings, thousands of detainees, School of the Americas-style training regime, contractors, and more.

You
don't need to be in Chicago to protest NATO. I'm asking everybody --
and especially everyone who has ever participated in #AfghanistanTuesday
-- to help protest NATO from wherever they are. We want to build a
crescendo of opposition that culminates in a clear
message to NATO on May 20/21 when they meet in Chicago:
#DEMILITARIZEafghanistan!

A number of Nobel Peace Prize laureates and laureate organizations
have agreed to come to Chicago April 23-25 for the 12th World Summit of
Nobel Peace Laureates. Some people believe that the Nobel Peace Prize laureates should decline the invitation to come to Chicago, to prevent the leaders of the City of Chicago from using them to legitimize the NATO summit.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

What if the protest during the NATO summit had turned out to be about something other than the protesters and/or the police? What would the message have been?

Of course, there weremany messages. But the message (or messages) that matter is/are the one(s) the public is actually able to hear. (Yes, and what we, ourselves, hear ... but at the end of the day are we talking to ourselves or to the public?)

People around the world are using the Twitter hashtag #NATOvictims to
bring forward the names of the victims who are left invisible to us.
People everywhere have already started to contribute to the
commemoration.